sinz 2025-12-21 05:37 p.m.Qualified Immunity must be denied at the dismissal stage because the Court is required to accept the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant used lethal force against a motorist who was merely fleeing from a "minor traffic collision" and "posed no immediate threat of death or serious physical injury". Under these facts, the Defendant’s conduct violates the clearly established "right to life" and "freedom from unreasonable seizure" defined by the bright-line rule in Tennessee v. Garner: a police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting them dead. Because the Plaintiff has successfully pleaded a violation of a clearly established right, the Defendant is not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
Furthermore, the Defendant’s reliance on Scott v. Harris is erroneous, as that case did not establish a per se rule justifying deadly force in every vehicular pursuit. In Scott, the Supreme Court’s decision was predicated on a video record that "blatantly contradicted" the driver’s story, depicting a "Hollywood-style car chase" involving extreme speeds, swerving around a dozen cars, and forcing multiple motorists off the road. Conversely, this case involves "mere flight" without any alleged high-speed maneuvers or imminent danger to the public. Scott permits force to stop a reckless driver who poses an actual, imminent threat to innocent bystanders, it does not authorize the summary execution of a driver involved in a low-speed accidental collision
Finally, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was a "homicide suspect" is an extrinsic factual claim that contradicts the four corners of the Complaint and cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Whether a suspect's actions "have risen to a level warranting deadly force" remains a "question of fact" that I believe is best reserved for a later stage. Even if true, even homicide suspects do not have an automatic license to be killed. Empy changed his without lights or sirens and when he got close enough he killed him over a minor traffic collision. He did not face an immediate threat like the defense claims. The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff and allow the case to proceed.